Ranking religions on acceptance of homosexuality and reactions to SCOTUS ruling

Religious groups have shown a wide range of reactions to U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry. There are some who have applauded the decision. Others have vehemently disagreed with the ruling as an audacious attempt to redefine marriage.

There have also been some religious communities that have remained mum. One reason: differences in opinion among their members.

Sociologists and political scientists who research clergy have repeatedly found that religious leaders are most likely to make public pronouncements on politics when their religious communities are unified. We see something similar on the question of same-sex marriage.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This first graph shows how some of the larger U.S. religious groups have responded to the Supreme Court decision. Each group has positions on marriage and sexuality; most have additional statements on LGBT rights. Most groups made a statement immediately after last week’s ruling, but some did not.

If you know of a public statement that I missed, let me know via twitter: @tobingrant

The graph shows the response to the ruling and also the general acceptance of homosexuality among members in each church, denomination, or religion. Each bar is the percentage of each group that believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. The data may under-state acceptance of homosexuality (because the data is from 2007), but 1) comparisons of groups to recent on same-sex marriage suggest that the change is small, and 2) the relative differences between religious groups remains the same.

The graph shows that public agreement with the Supreme Court was common among groups that have large majorities of members who believe that homosexuality should be accepted. Unitarians, atheists (I used American Atheists as the group), reform & conservative Jews, and United Church of Christ applauded the ruling.

Public pronouncements become less common for groups in which a majority is accepting of homosexuality, but there remains a large minority that is not. These groups have clear statements on how they understand marriage, sexuality, ecclesiology, but they were silent on the Supreme Court ruling. Most of these churches approach LGBT issues in ways that do not neatly fall into the categories of affirming or exclusion. United Methodists allow LGBT Christians to be members but “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be clergy, and same-sex marriage cannot be performed. Other groups, such as Lutherans (ELCA) and Disciples of Christ, the question of same-sex marriage is left to individual congregations to decide.

Catholics are unique on this issue. The bishops uphold the position of the church. There is more of a disconnect between American Catholics and the church on this issue. As I show in the next graph, Catholics who see a conflict between tradition and modern society are far less accepting of homosexuality (see graph below).

Churches are likely to publicly disagree with the court decision if their members are less accepting of homosexuality. Southern Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and others quickly responded to the court’s decision, making their disagreement clear. There were many other evangelical churches that also made statements, but they couldn’t be shown because they are too small to have enough members in the survey.

Historically black denominations were the exception. Only COGIC made a statement on the ruling. Among National Baptists, for example, the association leaves decisions to individual congregations but has taken a public position on marriage, both as a theological matter and a practical one (e.g., the position of military chaplains).

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This second admittedly-rainbow-colored graph ranks over 40 religious groups on their members’ views of homosexuality. It includes groups that could not be included on the first graph because they are collections of churches without one clear organizational voice. I also include 1) the position of all Catholics and 2) a breakdown of eight different types of Catholics (see explanation here). The graph is colored to show the broader religious tradition of the group. The graph shows,

Nearly all Unitarians, Buddhists, Jews (with the exception of the orthodox), and the so-called “nones” are accepting of homosexuality.

Evangelicals and most the historically black denominations are the least accepting of homosexuality. Also in the “discourage, don’t accept” camp are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints, Pietists (e.g., Mennonites), and Seventh Day Adventists (which some consider evangelical).

Mainline denominations range from being divided over sexuality (e.g., United Methodists) to be affirming (e.g., United Church of Christ).

In general, U.S. Catholics say that homosexuality should be accepted by society. This is true for many of the types of Catholics included in the graph. Traditional Catholics, however, are the exception.

Updates: The first graph no longer includes Churches of Christ because they do not have a single leader/organization that speaks for all of the churches. ELCA and UMC leaders released statements that discussed the ruling and continuing debate in respective denominations. This is now indicated on the first graph.

About the author

Tobin Grant

@TobinGrant blogs for Religion News Service at Corner of Church and State, a data-driven conversation on religion and politics. He is a political science professor at Southern Illinois University and associate editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

No, Dr. Mark, not, “ignorant.” Your arrogant conceit is typical of those who claim to speak for the ruler of the universe. I, among millions, accept a position that is “counter” to that in the Bible because I do not blindly follow the advice of the Bible. I don’t use the Bible for its “very clear” opinions on cosmology, astronomy, geology, medicine, dietary regulations, slave ownership, what to do with captured women, sexual advice, etc., etc. Given that YOU adhere to “Biblical teaching,”and in the face of the advances in knowledge that have been made since your Bible was cobbled together, I’d be very careful who I called ignorant.

Just a friendly amendment: “Unitarian” should be replaced with “Unitarian Universalism/ist” or with the Unitarian Universalist Association. 🙂 universalists did not simply convert to Unitarianism, not did Unitarians stay the same after merger.

Thanks for marking us as other, though, sometimes even that isn’t covered in surveys/data.

The bible is clear about lots of things. homosexuality isn’t one of them, as a great many scholars have pointed out. What is clear is that a lot of Christians cherry pick their bibles, and the result is simply a lot of bad fruit.

and that bad fruit is simply this: giving an ancient, vicious and durable prejudice cover as sincere religious belief.

the bible is clear about judging others before you have achieved spiritual perfection, but a lot of people earn comfortable livings slandering nad reviling.

The bible is clear about divorce, yet we see no campaigns directed against divorce, because that would inconvenience heterosexuals. The bible is clear that shrimp is an abomination, exactly the SAME thing as it allegedly says about what is allegedly about homosexuality. but so called Christians manage to draw their lines very carefully, so that they can enjoy that bacon wrapped shrimp and make it for lunch every Saturday and sunday that they don’t feel like going to Church.

Islam is included on the second chart, although the percentage may be fudged upward.

The first chart only shows religious groups who have issued official statements on the Obergefell decision. American Muslims generally try to fly under the radar on hot-button social issues, so it may be that the big American Muslim organizations played it sly and didn’t issue a statement.

You misunderstand Catholic doctrine if you think there is a disconnect between the bishops’ statement regarding traditional marriage views and membership “acceptance” of homosexuality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church commands respect for individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.

The Bible is not clear about homosexuality, but it is clear on sodomy. Sodomy is a sin, but how many people know the definition of sodomy? Oral sex is sodomy. I highly doubt there are many living adults right now who are not guilty of sodomy.

Jesus said to love your neighbor. All the time, not just when it’s convenient. We all sin, we are all sinners, and we all need to love and support each other.

You seriously completely missed the Metropolitan Community Churches denomination. The one that was FOUNDED as a place of spiritual refuge, safety, and radical inclusion BY LGBTs FOR LGBTs who had been turned away from and kicked out of – and afraid of attending – other churches. From its beginnings, MCCs have welcomed Christians and those of other faiths from ALL denominations. MCC began in San Francisco, in 1968, by Rev. Troy Perry, who had been defrocked after coming out in his denomination. Imagine a defrocked gay reverend founding AN ENTIRE DENOMINATION so that LGBTs could worship in peace! Surely, I missed this MAJOR, GROUNDBREAKING denomination whose congregations have ALWAYS sought to incorporate elements from each of the Christian and non-Christian faiths into worship services, so that each congregant feels a little bit of home they seek, when they gather the courage rising from the fear of giving Christianity one more try. Wow. Please, just lie to me. I missed it. Right?!

Every place that “marriage” is described in the Bible ESPECIALLY the New Testament . . . it is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. Now, you and yours (LGBT and materialist hordes) can and more than likely WILL persecute Christians for asserting that, but please note, you will be on the side of the bad guys.

If you and the liberal religious orgs had a shred of integrity in you, you would “affirm” that Christians that hold to marriage as Jesus described and defined it, are the good guys, and the religionists that claim they are christian and are yoked to the same positions and actions as atheists and gay activists are apostate.

This data is from 2007. Really? To say that churches have only made small changes on the issue comparable to this data would be laughable, if it weren’t so irresponsible. By the end of 2007, ONE state had legal same-sex marriage. ONE. To think that it’s now available in all 50 but churches have only made “small” progress is horribly inaccurate, and, honestly just lazy reporting. Do your research @TobinGrant. This is completely inaccurate.

It’s interesting how many people suddenly become Bible experts when their pet sin is ruffled a bit. i challenge anyone to quote me, book, chapter and verse, where the Bible is ambiguous on the issue of homosexuality.it’s banned, considered immoral, thus sinful. better yet, before you do, look up the terms hermeneutics and proof-texting. i can pretty much guarantee what you’ll do is proof text your “ambiguous” verse, without taking the context of it into consideration, which in turn makes your interpretation worthless.

Churches that have become apostate have sold out to the gay money making machine. Corporations showed them the way. They have to absolutely renounce what Jesus preaches and the writers of the New Testament contended for to support and promote homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

If there is anyone that reads these posts, that can produce ANY pro-homosexuality scriptures from ANYWHERE in the Bible, than please attempt that.

It’s time for honest Christians to grow up and face the malevolent gay menace head on and realize that all of the blood given by the martyrs of The Church paved the way to stand against the powers and principalities that have the end of The Church as their goal.

Gay marriage can only come into The Church as persecution. And that is nothing that the Church hasn’t seen before and overcome each and every time. The USA is nothing special on the pages of history. Just another morally decaying democracy that will come and go.

Although I agree with you that homosexual behavior is absolutely antithetical to Christian or Biblical-holiness behavior, you must realize that all of the texts in the old and New Testament defines marriage as immutably man and woman/husband and wife.

I invite anyone, from Tony Campolo to bringing back Harvey Milk from his eternal fate, to show marriage as anything BUT man and woman/husband and wife.

And when no one can produce any pro-homosexuality OR pro-gay marriage scriptures . . . to “promote and support” Christians in their opposition to gay marriage as a matter of religious integrity.

I always have to heave a sigh whenever self-proclaimed Christians indignantly declare that gay marriage defies “the word of God”. This argument is both cowardly and disingenuous — using biased interpretations of selected biblical passages to justify their brand of social intolerance and religious self-righteousness.

The reason why some people are so opposed to gay marriage — and all of the rights and benefits that come with a marriage certificate — is because the thought of homosexuals expressing physical affection for one another totally repulses them, and the notion that such a relationship could be officially sanctioned through marriage pours salt into the wound of their prejudice.

Cherry-picking biblical scripture to support one’s personal bigotry and hatred is as intellectually lazy as it is dishonest. If you truly believe that the Bible represents the word of God, then you should follow ALL of its mandates literally, even those that contradict other passages.

You want to talk about the sin of Sodomy, the Sins of Sodom? According to Ezekiel 16:49,
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”

By this definition, there’s a lot of sodomy going around, especially among the GOP in Congress.

The use of the word sodomy (sodomia) to denote condemned sexual behavior doesn’t show up until the writings of Justinian I in 538 CE.

Be Brave Contending, while statistically, Neopagans are probably more likely to be LGBTQIA than the general population, it is a generalization. One reason for the greater abudance may be in part because of the level of acceptance they receive there compared to some of the more “mainstream” paths. This does not mean that all of us are.

One could make your same generalization, Be Brave Contending, about the Unitarian Universalists. I know a number of LGBTGIA individuals who attend UU services.

Kindly do not attempt to tell us what we think or what our “true” motives are. I for one am not perturbed by homosexuality in the least, and would gladly affirm it if someone could make a sane biblical case for it. Thus far I have not seen one. If you have one, feel free ro share.

Great article. Love the fact that my denomination, Methodist, isn’t very concerned about this. We just want to love you and we want you to love Jesus. My only problem with this article is that you keep using the word religion in place of denomination. There are only a handful of religions on your list – Hindu Muslim, Buddhism, and Christianity. Those are all examples of religions. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc. are all examples of denominations of a religion, not religions in and of themselves.

fascinating article. However, I see the data is from a 2007 (8 years ago). Considering only 3 years prior (2004), Bush’s campaign made state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage THE issue that drove conservative voters to the polls, and one year prior (2006) current Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton stood on the floor of the Senate speaking in opposition to marriage equality, I would say that the 8 intervening years between this data and our current climate must make a substantial difference. Perhaps the list would still be in the same order, but I maintain the climate is wholly different today, and thus the suggestion that this data represents a reaction to the recent ruling isn’t accurate.

Although most Cristians are in disagreement with same sex marriage, who are we to judge the actions of others? As a cristian, I beleieve in free will, which means God has given men the freedom to do what they want. He respects our freedom to think and decide for ourselves even though we’re his creatures. I personally respect the decision of a person to do in life as he or she thinks is right. After all, salvation is personal and we will all be judged individually at the end of our lives. However, I will also strongly defend my faith and stand for my beliefs on marriage. I feel the urge to communicate my disgrement on same sex marriage and I will with those who support it. Now, it’s up to them to listen to me or not, but at least I’ve done my part. I’m no one to condemn or judge others. I’d like to just share my point of view without being disrespectful to your decision on your choice of marriage. After all, I believe we’re ALL brothers and sisters in Christ and should love one…

Maybe the question is a bit off the conclusions made in the article. Many people believe that homosexuality is a way of life for some. That was the question, not “Do you agree with homosexual marriage?”

Of course most people are for equality. In in sex, mentality, religion, etc. It’s a way of life in some places to require women to wear long dresses, I accept that it is part of some people’s way of life. I don’t agree that it should be done though.

Perhaps you are still counting the responses from congregations who are leaving us to go to the retrograde denominations that split off of us when when we stood up to the 5 Fundamentals, those who wouldn’t ordain women to any leadership positions or those that are leaving us now as we embrace the local option for LGBTQ pastoral leadership and marriage equality.

PCUSA has long been a liberal denomination, much like the Episcopal Church in the US and Europe. In June of 2014,For starters, on June 19th PCUSA’s General Assembly voted by an overwhelming margin (76% – 24%) to reject the Church’s teaching that marriage is “one man-one woman” and to embrace same sex marriage

Catholic marriage is the one sacrament that is effected between the two individuals giving themselves to each other to build one another up in holiness and are open to the transmission of life as a result of their union. If through no fault of their own, an individual finds him or her self attracted to the same sex is that sinful? No, because it is a volitional, outside of their will to be otherwise. My question is “How can one be sinning when one is loving another in a covenant relationship?”. We speak of sacred scripture as stagnant (as contrasted as living Word) when we have the Holy Spirit, wisdom, biblical tools for study, the sciences to apply to people who find themselves in love and outcast. The problem for them is the message “It is okay to have this orientation. Just don’t act on it and don’t marry. Obviously, more work and understanding is needed. Last I knew mercy covers justice.

One must assume that just as gay men entered into the Catholic seminaries in attempt to destroy the church, they have done likewise in the various protestant churches, especially the Presbyterians. And just like the Supreme Court stated that the written law means nothing anymore, but rather emotion needs to be entered into the equation, the churches infested with liberalism also have ignored the written word, and have injected emotion to interpret scripture. “Woe” is what our Lord said (matthew 18:7).

Why don’t I google it? Because it’s not MY job to prop up your (failed) argument. That’s YOUR job. If you think I need education then educate me. Show me why you’re right. You would expect no less — and demand at least as much — of me.

Actually the number one accepting church of gays, lesbians, transgenders, bi-sexuals is the MCC church. I can’t believe it was left out of the list since it is THE GAY CHURCH. Accuracy is important if you want to produce a scholarly read. might try it next time.

I care less about how religious texts are interpreted than I do about the terminology we use. “Homosexuality is a way of life that should be [accepted/discouraged] by society” is a homophobic statement in and of itself. First of all, “homosexuality” is a clinical term which became obsolete in the early 70’s when being gay was removed from lists of medical ailments. Secondly, “homosexuality” is an innate quality, NOT a “way of life,” that has existed in all of recorded history in each and every human society. Being LGBT predates every religion in practice today, and it will post date every religion in practice today, so arguments regarding “acceptance” based on religious dogma are void. This discussion really boils down to how one treats others who are different – there are open minded, accepting people and bigoted assholes in every argument. Hiding behind the notion that a magic baby in the sky is requiring you to be a bigot doesn’t make you less of an asshole.

Hi Dr. Mark- I do not agree with your second paragraph but I respect your right to interpretation of your own religious beliefs and appreciate that regardless of your interpretation, you recognize the importance of seperation of church and state and that the Bible is not law. I don’t need you to agree with me on how the Bible speaks to homosexuality, and people who think that it is reasonable OR possible for everyone to hold the same opinions as them are losing hold of reality and respect.

The chief reasons for the Levitical laws in 18-23 is to identify the people of Israel over against Egypt and Canaan. It says this in the opening verses of chapter 18 and repeats it again later in the section. These laws have no application to gentile Christians as both Peter and Paul make clear.

Instead of reading books that were not inspired by God, you should read the Bible. It is pretty clear on the subject, I would highly recommend you adding Romans Chapter one to your long list of readings.

You did not include the most tolerant, sharing, giving, fair, leaderless, church less, religion of them all: Baha’i. They are none judgmental, believe in the equality of all, education for all, religion and science go together, one should give service to mankind…. Check it out.

God never gave any laws about food or dress to Gentiles — no Jew ever cared how much shellfish a Gentile ate and neither did the Torah. Leviticus 20, however, where the sexual regulations are found, clearly states that God judged and rejected the Gentile nations for these very practices — long before the Torah ever existed. There is no reason to think that these behaviors are less “abominable” (to use the scriptural terminology) to God post-Torah than pre-Torah. Which is, of course, why the Jerusalem church (themselves Torah-observant Jews many of whom had known Jesus) retained them for Gentile converts as per Acts 15.

Ah, the “pais.” Perhaps you can clue us in on whose gay lover Jairus’ 12-year-old daughter, another well-known “pais” from scripture, might have been? Others around here seem to drop out of the discussion quite hastily when the question is asked…

Dr. Mark, with respect, the Bible IS clear, and it is clear that the six “clobber verses” do not mean what you think they mean. You are repeating the hateful theology that evolved in 19th century America among uneducated preachers who taught what they thought they saw in King James English, filtered through their own prejudice. Are you equipped to discuss the six verses in their historical and cultural setting? Can you tell us the literal meaning and significance of the key Greek words “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai”? If not, then I respectfully submit that you should not be making such strong statements as if they were fact.

So separate from any viewpoint, those graphs really need a revision before they are used for anything. For example in the 1st one ‘gray’ is ‘no reaction to the ruling’. If you have 50% of a church as ‘no reaction’ than that means 50% had a reaction.. and that’s what should be discussed? Or if you have 20% against than that begs the question if the other 80% was in favor? Didn’t care? Just put three bars per church with ‘no opinion’, ‘for’, ‘against’, and that chart would be interesting. And the 1st chart has 1-2 token non-Christian religions and the rest are just different Christian or Jewish sects, there Are other faiths in the US. And the colors on the second chart.. what’s pink? What’s the point of that chart?

In addition to Old Testament bans on homosexuality, it is discussed indirectly by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and directly in Corinthians, among other places, in the New Testament.

And he said to them in response, “Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female?” And he said: “For this reason, a man shall separate from father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife, and these two shall become one flesh. And so, now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

God will not be mocked, a man reaps what he sows, I wonder if God will find your clever contortions of his words amusing.

This is a bad article, and I’ll tell you why. Most everyone in every religion, except Islam, “accepts” gays. I’m Catholic, I “accept” gays, but I don’t accept practicing homosexuality. This is also the stance of the Church. We accept gays into our congregations and desire them to live holy lives, but necessarily can’t condone practicing homosexuals. And lest you say we hate gays because of this, we also accept straight people, but do not condone straight sexual intercourse outside the context of marriage. There are rules, and they are consistent. But this article reallt doesn’t say anything of value, ok so we accept gays, already knew that. So now what? This article doesn’t address the bigger issue, being the practicing of homosexuality and subsequently homosexual marriage.

and once again, Greg, you deny the theology of your own church in order to slander and revile gay men with your idea that they entered the seminary to destroy the church.

you CANNOT e a priest without a vocation, a literal calling from God. The church has its own tests to determine who has a vocation, because many do not.

either the test isn’t valid, or the idea of a vocation doesn’t exist. You cannot– well YOU can, but anyone not poisoned by religious hate cannot– simultaneously claim that the church is both correct and not correct.

Except where it’s man and wife and wife and wife and wife and etc. Polygamy is acceptable in the Bible, so can I assume you’re good with it, too? Personally, I don’t care who marries whom, as long as everyone involved are consenting adults. No one else’s marriage has ever had an impact on mine, and we’ve been hitched 23 years and counting.

Also, the sacrament of marriage is one thing. Secular marriage something else, and that has existed outside of religious structures for a very long time. Since we have separation of church and state, secular marriage should be of no concern to religious people.

The source for the numbers is listed at the bottom of the chart. It’s the same Pew Forum that you got your numbers from.

The difference is that the numbers shown in the chart only represent American Muslims, while the numbers you have linked to do not include American Muslims at all. Your numbers only include Muslims who live in places like Kazakhstan and the Palestinian territories.

American Atheists is faaaaar from representative of actual atheists in the country. Those are only the atheists who care enough to join a particular group and/or mind being lead by a figurehead like David Silverman. And they are a very very tiny percentage of the atheists in the country.

Case in point, there are about 2,200 members in American Atheists. But well over 10% of Americans consider themselves atheists. That means there are about 30 million atheists in the country. The ratio is staggering. Sorry, I don’t mean to be mean, but that data is completely wrong. My guess is a much larger percentage of atheists would approve of the ruling than is represented, but that’s not the point. It’s just frustrating when people try to lump us in with religion and misrepresent data.

Yes, the Bible is very clear about the intended relation of male + female. Females are property, not people with rights. They can be bought and traded. Rapes are considered damage to property, and result in a fine and ownership of the ‘damaged goods’. The Bible is clear about all of that.

I don’t know if you’d call the threat of schism (as in the UMC) being “not very concerned about this”. Progressive caucuses such as Reconciling Methodists are pushing very hard for an official statement of full inclusion of LGBTQIA people (including ordination and marriage) in UM church life. As well, the conservative front, led by Good News, is fighting tooth and nail to keep it from happening.

Agreed! Metropolitan Community Church is THE church on this issue. It has been advocating for gay marriages for decades, and many of its own preachers and members have been at the forefront of the lawsuits that made this happen. Include Metropolitan Community Church as #1 on the top list; leaving them out is a HUGE oversight!

UFMCC, United Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, is THE most supportive church on this issue, in fact they have been actively advocating for gay marriage for decades! Many of the lawsuits and first marriages in the U.S. and Canada were actually enacted by UFMCC pastors and members. Below is their press statement after the Supreme Court decision came out:

The Rev. Dr. Nancy Wilson is the moderator of the Metropolitan Community Churches, which has ministries around the world. Dr. Wilson was part of the first LGBT faith delegation to meet with a sitting president in 1979.She was a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“Today, love and equality win! The Supreme Court concluded that all loving couples deserve the right to marry! Finally, the U.S. Constitution applies to every family,” said the Rev. Dr. Nancy…

Being gay is not a choice. God made gay people just as he made heterosexuals. God would not approve of discriminating against any person, gay or straight. The Bible was written by mostly men, not by God. So the references in the Bible to marriage are not God’s statements, they are statements of opinionated men. Paul’s statement in Romans is the opinion of Paul, not of God. The opinions stated in the Bible are from people who did not have the scientific knowledge or the cultural diversity that we have in the 21st century.

The Baha’i Faith also does not recognize same-sex marriage as marriage at all. For a Baha’i to have sex outside of a marriage to a opposite-gendered partner is a transgression of Baha’i Law. Whether that position can be characterized as ‘tolerant’ is really up to you. The Baha’i Faith also has nine elected legislators, all men, who are considered infallible. This is definitely not what most people would call ‘leaderless’.

I don’t disagree with your sentiment but the Bible says nothing about sodomy. At least in the ‘immoral sexual acts’ meaning of the word. The use of the word to mean, as you write, oral sex, anal sex (basically any sex that doesn’t/can’t result in procreation) dates from about the 14th century AD. long after the christian bible was settled on.
Given the Roman church’s position on contraception ‘sodomy’ arguably includes vaginal sex with a condom. But it doesn’t include having sex when reproduction is impossible because of infertility or the time in the menstrual cycle. Arguably because God could intervene to ensure conception. Something he apparently can’t do when a pill is taken, diaphragm inserted or condom worn. Go figure.
As one of my favourite T-shirts from the 1980’s went –
SODOMY
SO.DO.MY Neighbours
SO.DO.MY Friends
SO.DO.MY Family

Nice article, however, I think your graphic is missing a global denomination on the right side of history. Not sure how Metropolitan Community Church was left off as it has often been the leader in progressive, pro-LGBT faith communities that the others have followed.

Paul, in his honesty, says this about his own knowledge and understanding, and for all practical purposes many other scriptures as well —

1. …our knowledge is partial and incomplete…
2. …we see things imperfectly…
3. All that I know now is partial and incomplete…
(1 Corinthians 13:9,12)

Those are excellent examples that teach us that any or all scripture is ‘too’ partial, incomplete and imperfect to be useful for every situation.

We therefore must reason out (reasoned judgment) anything and everything in scripture ‘as necessary’, and that will help us to ‘effectively’ judge and evaluate a matter or people based on all reasonable, ‘current or modern’ attitudes, experiences and knowledge.

Thank God that the continuing and the always, modernity inclined work of the ‘Spirit’ is alive and well ‘in many of us’.

You don’t accept me if you only accept me under certain conditions, and especially when those conditions mean I’d be doomed to a life of loneliness and self hatred for denying part of the very essence of being human, which is to love and desire partnership. That is NOT acceptance, and it most certainly is not showing me love, as much as you’d like to continue telling yourself that it is.

I was brought up in a very religious household. I was also suicidally depressed as a gay teenager in a world surrounded by messages of hate. In a way, I have churches to thank for bringing me to atheism. Without the hatred of “Christians,” I might never have questioned my belief in God and begun to think about the universe in a completely rational way.

I am proud to be an atheist. I am proud to be a gay man. I strongly believe that the world is moving toward rationality and logic — meaning that all religions will eventually be viewed for what they are: prehistoric superstition. I thank “Christians” every day for helping to hurry this process along.

Um. The graphs do not marry with the article. The graphs draw data collected in 2007/8 and are SILENT on the matter of marriage, and are divorced from the recent SCOTUS findings on same.

Also…
“Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society.” and not “Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society.”.

These statements are ambiguous, and potentially contradictory. I would struggle to respond to this, if canvassed.

1. Homosexuality… (Being attracted to a same gender person? Being in a romantic and/or erotic relationship with same gender person? Engaging in sexual activity with same gender person?)
2. …is a way of life (… exists in life? … is a choice? …is not natural?)
3. … which should be accepted (….as existing? …tolerated? …embraced? … encouraged?)
4. … by society (you get the gist)
5. Accepted/Discouraged are NOT opposites, nor are they even mutually exclusive, ESPECIALLY tacked onto an impossible…

“in the end times, things that used to be wrong will be right and things that were right shall become wrong.”

And right now, we have a lot of people who call themselves Christians worshiping money and calling it “Jesus.”

And defending the poisoning of the earth and the destruction of God’s creation for the sake of it.

They seem to think that the “end times” will come about by the law allowing two guys to partner for life. As opposed to environmental policies that are actually likely to bring about the environmental disasters that we read about in the Book of Revelation.

“And he said to them in response, “Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female?” And he said: “For this reason, a man shall separate from father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife, and these two shall become one flesh. And so, now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

He’s talking about DIVORCE.

So how come evangelicals aren’t trying to make THAT illegal?

Because many of THEM are divorced, that’s why. Because they IGNORE Jesus about THAT, that’s why. Because it would affect THEM, not somebody ELSE, that’s why.

There are few things more insane, ridiculous and hypocritical than watching a divorced man cite this passage in order to condemn gay people.

I wouldn’t mind AT ALL if the law made it harder for people to divorce and remarry. Is your motive in bringing up this subject to call us to greater faithfulness, or greater unfaithfulness?

As for the other Israeli national laws mentioned, in a nation such as ours which was not set up around allotments of land among 12 specific families, I’m not sure how they would work. In any case, the Torah-observant Jews of the Jerusalem Church did not transfer those laws onto Gentile converts, but retained only what had always been expected of righteous Gentiles — abstention from blood and from known pagan sacrificial meat, and all sexual immorality.

The Bible is very clear it was levitical law to be put to death to be found sleeping with the same sex… in the New testement Paul again reiterates that men aught not lay down with men as he does with a woman. Can’t get any clearer than that. How do you love a sinner? Feed them. Feed them with compassion feed them genuinely. Feed them by warning of their life choice and showing Christ has made a way, feed them with hope. Love is ….showing you love by warning of a road that leads to death. Jesus sat and ate with sinners and he preached to thousands love and hope through him eternal life but also the wages of sin is death he showed them their paths and preached repentance and baptism

Another denomination I don’t see is the Metropolitan Community Church. Small in numbers, but it still exists. One supposes that it would reach 100 percent acceptance of the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality.

Forget the bible on this one, the supreme court voted their opinion and created a right were none existed on an issue they had no authority over. The issue should have been left to the states to decide. The SC has become a legislative body of unelected officials .

Be Brave Contending, “the old and New Testament” are not the holy scriptures of the United States of America. Those would be the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The most quoted line of those scriptures says that we believe in a government that believes that all people are created equal and all have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty means: “”the freedom to live your life as you choose; free from the compunctions of others.” Your liberty ends at the point that you deny the liberty of others. Using your interpretation of the Old Testament to limit my liberty is the antithesis of the American dream.

BBC, you must be off your paranoia meds. The malevolent gay menace does not exist. The only gay agenda is the fight to establish the promise of America for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It has only taken 240 years, but finally we are seeing breakthroughs….thanks to God and the Supreme Court.

You sound like the Catholics of Galileo’s day. Screaming heresy because the Bible said nothing about the earth spinning around the sun. The Bible actually insinuated that the sun was spinning around the earth because a prophet asked God to make the sun stand still. They screamed so loud that Galileo was excommunicated for heresy. So 500 years later, the church was compelled to apologize…they were wrong! Religious zealots who demand that others live by their interpretations of ancient texts have done, and still do, much destruction.

That’s nonsense. Galileo was never excommunicated, nor was scripture even particularly important to the case. The main difficulty with the acceptance of heliocentrism was that the academic community of the time was reluctant to jettison the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy which had controlled astronomy-related thought since antiquity, particularly when they had no explanation for heliocentrism’s biggest problem, the lack of observable stellar parallax. It would be similar to someone today proposing that we dispose of Darwin altogether.

Ultimately the Galileo episode was about personalities and politics, not science. Copernicus’ heliocentrism was very wsrmly received by the Pope.

I am very glad that you have found some sense of peace. While I am not homosexual, I too have abandoned the lunacy of organized religion and feel that I am better for it.

I am forced to shake my head in disbelief after reading the seemingly endless comments here about what the Bible actually means as an argument for (or against) social justice. I cannot believe that after years of carefully studying the thing, these individuals, who all seem to be at the very least well read, haven’t bothered to ask themselves the most obvious question about the Bible: “Why am I reading this crap?”

Interesting how people who are opposed to same-sex marriage are telling those that support it to read the Bible and see what God says about, but 2 of the top 6 religion groups that support it are Jewish, who the Old Testament, although they don’t call it the Old Testament, is written for.

Jesus called us to LOVE one another; and discerning acts defined as sinful is NOT hatred but the greatest form of LOVE; the LOVE of the eternal…..Jesus speaks very clearly in Matthew 19 about marriage; read it to the end. Finally; Loving Vs Virginia did not have components that did not fit the meaning of the word Marriage. One man and one woman wanted to marry. It is neither the same; Nor is “defining marriage” the job of the government; which has LIMITED authority, or the courts who are not authorized to create law where none exists….

Biology is very clear about same sex marriage and if you discount religion, biology and evolution would still deny the validity of same sex marriage.
Puzzle pieces are made to fit together for a very good reason in biology and continuation of the species. That it is only possible to procreate in male-female relationships should tell you something.

As a Congregationalist our church accepts the gay community and some of us have received training in order to facilitate this. However our youth see through this rhetoric. The math is proof. Since the gay community started asserting itself, our youth does not take acceptance seriously. Even with scholarly evaluation of their role in Gods community; many of our youth have simply rejected our liberal approach of acceptance and our numbers have consistently and drastically reduced over the last 10 years. What is even more concerning is that our youth are rejecting the lessons of acceptance our Master would commend us to follow.
I am afraid that the gay community has inserted itself within Non Denominational communities and the youth are the litmus test of our liberal acceptance of those individuals. Now my church is simply disappearing and the scholars that arrived us at this point are without a solution to this. Do Catholic and Mormon youth leave at this rate? Afraid Not!

Reba I agree whole-heatedly that a legal marriage should be a government thing and rituals and a marriage within the church should be seen different. Hell, I think they should term them completely different. We don’t have to go to the government every Sunday to worship a government god and we don’t do taxes in a church so if you think about it marriage and partnerships are completely different by their own definitions. Religious people don’t like many of the things the government does like war so they are different too.

I have to say that this forum is amusing and informative. I am not a Jew, Christian nor do I hate what two people do in their bedrooms. God said it was not my business and so I don’t question the big guy. I am however GAY MALE and have no problems getting around the world because I act normal. Respect my space and I will respect your space. I care for other people but I don’t push my views on others. Simple rules of love Jesus spoke. Why are we having a problem concentrating on our own miss-deeds and OCD on another persons. Again the straight friends I have and are many love me because I will not date a straight man. I only date GAY MEN.

Scripture that was written withing an infamous community who never meant for you to be apart of. The Jewish community in biblical times were full of patriarchial mischief that would blow your mind. So alot of your scriptures that you so hold true to the word of God actually means and represents something totally different from what your percieve.

I am a theologian and study Bible and Theology. It is my life, my calling, and my passion. I have a B.A in Bible and Theology, M.in Div, and currently working on my D. in Phillosophy and Secular Culture. Degrees really don’t mean anything but there alot of work that comes with it. I just don’t rely on the bible especially when it’s only been around for 1200 years. Considering that the world has been in existence since 6 billion years ago. Did i mention that we have proof that Christianity is the newest reiligon compared to 16000 religions throughout human history….

Insects, fish, animals have no conscious and all are programmed to reproduce and others of same species recognised. its natural to try to reproduce no brain required. but without thoughts to direct same sex connections are in all creatures and science says no exceptions. So add in a conscious thought, choice can happen. But same sex relations are biologically scientifically, totally natural. its only religions created by thinking that have issues with it, not mother nature
.

Some catholic churches have LGBT groups to support all life styles. i attend one that has conservative mainstream priest but the LGBT group is strong since LGBT has been a part of that community since it began. so acceptance is by place and is different for everyone.. just shop churches like anything else.

Same sex relations are natural and in all creatures, no exceptions, science keeps looking too. the rule of nature is reproduce. no brain required, just recognition of other of same race. it is the natural populations limiter.it only gets messy with humanitty

Leviticus didn’t mention lesbians, which is rather odd considering males and females were mentioned for bestiality and again both sexes in Deuteronomy. Since Deuteronomy repeats Leviticus, and Deuteronomy forbids male temple prostitution, and since the culture being condemned in Leviticus included male priests dressed as women, it becomes clear the reason why Leviticus didn’t mention females -it wasn’t condemning homosexuality, it was condemning temple prostitution. And the fact that Deuteronomy repeats this, confirms that fact. Sorry anti-gay religious bigots, u loose again. LOL!

Jehovah’s Witnesses will believe the watchtower over scripture under the threat of being viewed as an apostate and subsequently disfellowshipped if they voice a different belief. The watchtower is vehemently anti-gay. The bible, however, is not. The more this is highlighted, the more the watchtower’s anti-gay rhetoric will be too obvious to remain unchallenged by its own membership. The “tight pants” link with homosexuality comment opened a lot if folks eyes to the scapegoating the watchtower does against gay people.

Aww, your bigotry has found acceptance. But just be careful because as you can see around you, society is making less and less room for bigotry and prejudice against those who are gay. Thank god ISIS isn’t on that list, I’d hate to think how “proud” you’d be of them. 🙁

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

This states clearly against homosexuality, but I beleive that if you ask forgiveness and turn from your ways, God will save you and you will live with him in heaven and have eternal life. I am just like everyone else, I mess up, and I sin, and I have to ask God for forgiveness of my sins. But that is why Jesus died on the cross!

The World Psychiatric Association, composing of nearly 200 countries, wrote a declaration in March 2016. It was addressed to the United Nations and world leaders. In the declaration, WPA discussed the damaging impact of trying to change a homosexual. It further stated that since homosexuality cannot be change/reversed, it is therefore NOT a choice and homosexuals should not be treated as second class citizens. http://stories4hotbloodedlesbians.com

Sure it’s a religion. Atheists are metaphysical naturalists, so, it qualifies as a religion. Atheistic
philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”.

Every religion has tenants & a story & so the atheists have theirs:

— Evolution, which is their explanation of where everything came from.

— Faith, atheists have blind faith, (using their own definition) the natural laws of chemistry,
physics & biology were violated & life arose from non-life. Still an impossible feat today.

— Social, atheism is taught to children in schools as evolution. Teaching evolution is teaching
atheism.

— Doctrine, the atheists have their Humanist Manifesto. Interestingly, the atheists had to
update their doctrine b/c of the atrocities from the Nazi & Communist police states, which make atheists appear the same as radical Muslims.

— Ethics, there’s basically no foundation for morals. It’s all a relative “religion”. Most people
(atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong.

The dichotomy that atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favored by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.

Copy and pasted nonsense…..Atheism is not a religion by any means, certainly not by the definition or the origin of the world. Religion is a system with a set of beliefs. What set of beliefs are exclusive to being an Atheist? The denial of the existence of deities? That is not a belief system….

Actually, I summarized in my own words what you’re attributing to copy & pasted; however do you NOT KNOW who Micahel Ruse is? He’s a heavy weight atheist in the academia field. You cannot take lightly his claim that “atheism is a religion”!

Even Richard Dawkins is on record saying, “I can’t be sure God does not exist”. He has to say that b/c of the incredibile faith it takes to believe DNA just happened to evolve w/all the coding it contains & the uniqueness of each DNA cell that no two people on the planet are replicated exactly – not even identical twins.

1 Religion is a belief that a supernatural power or being governs the universe. Atheism is a religion based on the grounds its believers believe there is none.

2 Evolution is scientific fact so therefore teaching it in schools is not indroctination. In science is something is not a fact it then becomes a theory to be challenged and to be proved one way or another.

Agree with #1.
Agree & disagree w/#2. The first sentence needs to be clarified, as long as micro-evolution is taught, then it would not be considered indoctrination, b/c it’s a proven fact; however, macro evolution is bogus. There’s no fact to that “theory”, which is probably considered false by most honest scientists now days (which is why so many are exploring the idea that the Earth was seeded by aliens). There’s no proof, no fossilized evidence, no missing link found, nothing to substantiate the “theory” of macro evolution. Please spare me the details of so-called fossil evidence, as ALL of these have been shot down & proven to be either a hoax or false, or bad science.

You may wonder why schools keep churning out such propaganda as evolution. There’s been a Liberal strangle hold on the educational system for a long time that does not allow for real science to not only question their so called theory, but to prove it false. However, students aren’t allowed to see other sides to this “theory” & think for themselves, which is why it’s called PROPAGANDA.

I can’t believe that those who hold that religion is an attempt to raise one’s rank socially and to exterminate another group (such as the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic attempt to exterminate homosexuals) are in the same rank as humanist atheists. Surely atheists who attack religions as murderous snobs and tax-evaders on the basis of religious evils want to be or even can be ranked as a ‘religion,’ a word derived from the Lation ‘religio’ which Cicero defines as ‘proper devotion to the gods’. Calling atheism a ‘religion’ in that sense is as silly as suggesting that anything after Ikhenaten’s Aten is ‘monotheistic’ when the majority of religions worship minimally a god and a devil in a dualistic dance macabre. Better to allow those who choose to ‘believe’ (to accept without evidence) in a ‘religion’ to burn in hell forever and ever all on their own. Why condemn innocent scientific investigators to the bizarre beliefs of wishful thinking? Just one caveat: does the Devil allow smoking in his Ratskeller? I might switch to religion; I detest harps, marshmallow clouds, and the idea of eternity insults my (albeit bad) habit of punctuality and concern for others’ short time on earth — and I am never late for funerals, especially of nonsmokers! I would never miss the ecstasy of Schadenfreude, however fleeting, like ejaculation, its light of reason.

I am a married lesbian that Unitarians banned from our local Unitarian church because my spouse and I wouldn’t help Unitarians cover up the horrific cyber bullying hate speech which targeted us at our local Unitarian church.

The author of this article should have ask “former members” of organizations to tell their homophobic experiences in a particular religion, instead of writing puff piece based on public pronouncements and windowdressing from the Unitarian religion.

This article seems to be based on the general “public relations” arm of the Unitarian religion. The direct experience of actual members can be VERY different after they are intensely pressured to remain silent about ugly blatant written homophobia that targets them at this church.

Even though I was a Unitarian Board officer at the time we experienced intense homophobia by Unitarians, we were pressured and shamed by Unitarians to NOT “Hurt the reputation of the church” by telling community members the ugly homophobia we experienced at the hands of Unitarians.

Don’t believe the hype about how “welcoming” Unitarians are to lesbians. As a Unitarian same sex couple written hate speech by a Unitarian teacher was widely distributed which targeted us. The written hate speech included, “She can kiss my heterosexual ass “, that I was “hated” as a lesbian and that my lesbian friends were also hated. I was also described in writing as a piece of shit, etc. etc.

The precious reputation of the Unitarian church was worth more to the Unitarians than our personal human dignity as a same-sex couple, so we were told we must help Unitarians cover up the homophobia that was happening to us, or we would suffer the consequences. In the end, we were banned from the Unitarian church because we wouldn’t help with the cover-up they demanded.

Don’t believe the Unitarian hype, and church window dressing. It is NOT a safe emotional place for lesbian women.

@Jason King — Indeed Atheism is a religion. It stands for anti-theism. In other words it is more in line with the Naturalist and Scientists of our world. But all this discussion is for not anyway since the end of the world as we know it is on the way at the hands of Theocrats who are identified in Revelation 17 as being the Prostitute riding the multiple headed wild beast, which shows Religion in control of governments.

I believe you need to read your high school science text book again. There are two different distinct forms of evolution taught in the science text books. They are called Micro and Macro Evolution.

I will save you some time and explain it to you.

1. Microevolution:
A brown bug that blends into sand and dirt. Migrates to a region that is lush and green. (For some reason such as natural disaster like flooding or volcanic eruption) over a very long period of time the brown bug takes on a green tint which helps it blend into the new environment. But if you examine the brown version and the green version they are still the same bug. Can still mate and produce offspring. Microevolution is ones body adapting to its environment and yes is a scientific fact.

2. Macroevolution:
Or “The Theory of Evolution”
happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Primitive primates evolve into separate groups ranging from Humans, Apes, Chimpanzees, Monkeys etc. All being traced back to a single ancestor species. This is NOT scientific fact as it clearly states in the name. “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”

Scientific Theory:
Is an attempt to explain a observed phenomenon that have been repeatedly confirmed by experiment.

At this point you maybe thinking well it has been repeatedly confirmed through experiment so it must be fact. But there has been no experiment that has confirmed this Theory as it would take millions of years to observe. This process would also be an ongoing. People and animals would still be changing and creating separate and new species all of the time. (Remember this process has been going on for 30 million years or so) Or at least once in recorded history and this still has not happen.

In summary please know your Facts before proclaiming that something is or is not one

Notably they completely disregarded the damage that will happen to societies that embrace homosexuality. You will see sexual perversion like the world has never seen before. It will spin out of control so much so, that even governments will not be able to control the fallout. You will see mass rapes and wholesale disregard of the value of human life. The Bible has several examples of cultures that spun out of control sexually. The only remedy was complete annihilation…for their own good. It will happen. So help me God, It is not a matter of if, but when. God has clearly given his warning. God will not be mocked.

Atheism is not the same thing as anti-theism. Anti-theists say they are atheists because they hate God. They know He exists, but refuse to acknowledge what they know be true, because they hate Him. It is the way, they believe, they can get revenge against God. Very similar to a disobedient child disowning his parents.

Could you provide me the site to the undisputed peer reviewed article that presents evidence that proves evolution (from simple organisms to more complex ones) is a “scientific fact.” Because I have been looking for that article for over 40 years.
Have fun searching.

I agree that, by definition, atheism is not a religion. However, it is a belief system in something that cannot be proved by scientific observation. You cannot scientifically prove that there is no God. So, it requires a great deal of faith to be an atheist, which makes it look very similar to a religion.

@purplecare – You’ve got that a little confused. Atheism is the belief there is no GOD, so how can they hate something they do not believe in? They can’t. As for Anti-theism that is a state of mind or social alignment in which the person is against any kind of religion. There is a difference between the two. Your assumption that they hate GOD is frankly unfounded since it is not true. And the comparison to a disobedient child would apply more to an Anti-thiest (Anti-theism) since the child is in revolt against GOD and could easily be likened to an Anti-Christ, a person in opposition to the Christ and subsequently GOD. I really do understand the differences, you simply have to step back and separate anti-religion from anti-belief in GOD and anti-GOD.

“More correctly, Anti-theism is a religion, atheism is not. However, every person I ever met who claimed to be an atheist was actually an anti-theist; they believed in a God, but hated him.”-purplecare

Even MORE correctly, NOT hating to NOT collect stamps is STILL…NOT a religion. There are no funny costumes and/or regular rituals. You are simply effing the ineffable, a-gain. Results, of course may (never) vary. Such is the Ponzi of “virtuous” circularity.

Not worshiping religiously the unfalsifiable/ineffable is not something. (Dogs don’t NOT do it, either.) Worshiping it religiously…is. Every atheist/person you ever met is not a logical position, just a preselective sample: Black Swan.

In contrast, I’ve never met a theist who could prove to me they actually believed what they claimed to believe, let alone the truth of such a belief. How does a theist prove they are one without the sleazy excesses of some Prosperity Gospel metric, such as that professed by both Trump, and his “spiritual advisor” (Paula White)?

Money is just #God’s way of telling you (to quote Don Draper’s bill board adage) that “whatever you’re doing right now is all right?”

Does Trump believe what he says he believes? He said he talks to #God more daily now than ever. So does Richard Dawkins, probably: 0=0+0?

So, whether or not #God exists is beyond our neuro-logical capacity: tautologies are what they are. There surely must be a test to assess the verity of any professed belief, however. Dr. Persinger had a “God Helmet” which measured/produced neurological agitations related to and interpreted by the subjects as religious/God experiences.

Interestingly, pornography elicited the same signatures. Food for thought, given the recent high status funeral given the likes of Cardinal Law.

Is the absence of an absence, actually an absence? What if one simply understands/observes (for now) religious belief to be a product/function of cultural/evolutionarily selective pressures on a species’ neurological possibilities?

Hume/Popper/Russell all promoted the idea that one cannot use logic to prove that logic is logical, as I recall: “virtuous” circularity is not a proof. That is the logical definition of God, a “virtuous” circularity, the magical/illogical outside perspective imagined by the players inside the game.

Keith Sewell recently (“Leaving Truth”) suggests that things are “true” only until they are proven not to be. There is no “Truth” which can be defended as such. What is not supported even temporarily by hardcore empiricism is simply unfalsifiable, socio-cultural fantasy.

How does one religiously worship/believe in something which is subject to constant revision? There is a reason relativism is seldom embraced by belief systems: socio-cultural evolutionary pressure.

The bedrock of any money-theistic religious state, such as America, for example, is…that the ontological currency should always be the currency. “In God We Trust” is a social contract, not a proof that God exists: “These Are The Rules,” in other words, would fit just as well.

#God is a neurological spandrel, a back round noise, a by-product, not an Eternal Truth. That is unfalsifiable, for now. It must be True? As True as #God, one supposes. Anyway, I don’t feel any particular urge to wear funny hats, and mumble imprecations to the void. Belief surely requires a little more investment, some tithing, for example. Maybe, I could get a group together under the banner: “Show Of Hands, Everyone Who Thinks Reality Is A Function Of Unverifiable Consensus?” Needs some work. Give it a few thousand years…

What is this suggested need to align but a shared circularity invocation? You’re simply suggesting a cure for an ill I don’t see (because of my neurological makeup) as a compelling alt-narrative.

The cure for the cure is the cure because that’s what a cure is: #God and/or…virtuous circularity. That is checkmate for our species’/speciesist neurological makeup/limitations.

So, I align with the Pastafarians, then what? I have a (gifted) fridge magnet: “Jesus is coming. Look busy.” That pretty much sums up all religions: something to do while awaiting one’s personal carbon-sequestration.

“Could you provide me the site to the undisputed peer reviewed article that presents evidence that proves evolution (from simple organisms to more complex ones) is a “scientific fact.” Because I have been looking for that article for over 40 years.
Have fun searching.”-purplecare

Fact/theory are moving targets. You are falsely applying an immutable “religious” metric to the ongoing process of the Scientific Method. As with searching for the “fact” of God, wasting 40+ years is pretty much par for the course, because Science is different:

‘…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.’

“I agree that, by definition, atheism is not a religion. However, it is a belief system in something that cannot be proved by scientific observation. You cannot scientifically prove that there is no God. So, it requires a great deal of faith to be an atheist, which makes it look very similar to a religion.”-purplecare

That seems to be a riff on Pascal’s Wager: you (should) have to believe in something? In practise, however, not being concerned with the scientifically provable/unprovable existence of a tautological proposition like #God, requires no effort at all. Atheism simply involves living like an animal, just getting on with it.

“Someone” keeping Score in “Heaven” is simply a passive-aggressive form of paying forward materialism, most greasily represented these days by the likes of Trump/Paula Young, and their Prosperity Gospel boondoggle.

Salvation religions are simply Ponzi schemes built on logically irrefutable tautologies, “trivial truths.” God is/isn’t…equally. So, what? Not to be naive, they have been immensely useful tools in acquiring and preserving social/political power.

Religion-based tautologies represent one of the great acts of the human imagination. Results, of course, may vary. Fortunately, for its practitioners, salvation results are never posted. Empirical science, in sharp contrast, offers just such an opportunity for the serially faithless: peer review. You likely can’t fill a cathedral with “Right today/Wrong tomorrow” as a teleological default.

The physicist, Brian Cox, once declared that “a human is the only animal which thinks it should be doing something else.” That something else is culture, and the cumulative evolutionary benefits which accrued to its lucky winners.

The layers of, in many cases, mutually exclusive human cultures available to study indicate that none have proven necessary to the existence of life itself on this planet. In fact, the opposite appears to be the looming conclusion regarding our own species. The Universe yawns…

“Judaism accepts people who are gay but not homosexual acts that are forbidden.”-Barry

What is its position on “homosexual acts” undertaken by heterosexual couples? Any brief survey of the delights offered up on the internet would seem to suggest some…overlapping? Not accepting the overlapping would simply reduce Judaism to being a common/generic, if somewhat exclusive, fertility cult, would it not? So much hypocrisy, so little time, is a charge deserved by most human social/cultural fictions. Whenever the religious wheel is re-invented, it still has to roll like the other ones, because the purpose remains the same, a narrative social Ponzi: belong, or die.

Forbidden by whom? Obviously just another self-selecting fertility cult/social machine mashup with ontological, teleological,
and cosmological pretensions. I always wonder at the attendant fuss and team sweater fetishes. Imagine a Universe actually “caring” what a randomly generated anything does with its genitals. I can’t. People just making [delete] up? No problem. “Tell me a story,” is our species’ neurological default, after all.

“Don’t believe the Unitarian hype, and church window dressing. It is NOT a safe emotional place for lesbian women.”-UU Lesbophobia

But, are any fertility cult based religions safe places for exceptions?

I wonder that “Theophobia” might not be a better handle, given the Bronze-age algorithm that all salvational socio-religious mechanisms actually represent. Shaming and shunning is what they do. Everything social is Jonestown existentially: better dead than wrong. “See you in Paradise!”-ISIS/Al Qaeda/Roy Moore tag line.

The self-selecting narrative is everywhere. One is free-to-choose to be a Cleveland Browns fan, is the metric. Someone has to be in last place is the rest of it. That’s why everything is necessarily…a choice, to maintain the narrative fiction.

It’s wrong for you to be excluded from the group benefits which exist by reason of their exclusionary/selective potentials? That’s a hard case to make.

“This man is absolutely not capable of running a hot dog cart. He is crazy and dangerous to this country. We have to get rid of him as quickly as possible any way possible. He is guilty of everything we suspect him of and I would not be surprised if he is not guilty of murder. Just look harder. He has got to go.”-phyllis villar, sarasota, FL

Funny, a lot of allegedly pious people think being homosexual is a similarly disqualifying set of circumstances. The difference is…?

The test you request is explained in the Bible, in Romans, Chapter 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

“If this passage does not apply to you, as you claim. Then you are right. There is no God, and you may rest well.”-purplecare

And, if you do believe it applies to you, proves what?

I don’t think you appreciate how (some of) humanity has exploited its own neurological limitations to achieve social stability. “Truth,” and utility are not the same thing.

The only religious narrative is: “Trust us because there is no proof we’re wrong, and…this socially beneficial Ponzi can work for you, too.” As America’s Preacher-in-Chief said in His application process, “I don’t have to do this. What have you got to lose?”

#PonziWH45 is underway. The Most Reverend/Obsequious Mike, is a heartbeat way, from his MAGA Theocracy wetDream coming back to life in America, instead of for its competitor’s market share. The Truth is The Truth because that’s what The Truth is because it says so: neurological Ponzis ‘R us, as surely as apples fall from trees.

[PS] Who needs #God/Free Will when we can have AI?

‘Goldie Nejat, the director of the Institute for Robotics and Mechatronics at the University of Toronto, said it’s likely that “fetch and carry” helper robots are the next stage. For elderly people in the early stages of cognitive impairment it could allow them to live in their homes longer.

A robot could nudge the person to have dinner at 6 p.m., take their pills or look through a recipe book with them to help get motivated. That would leave the more compassionate — or uniquely human — duties to healthcare workers and free them from the repetitive jobs.’